DebateQA: Evaluating Question Answering on Debatable Knowledge

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.01419v1
• Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:54:34 GMT
• Title: DebateQA: Evaluating Question Answering on Debatable Knowledge
• Authors: Rongwu Xu, Xuan Qi, Zehan Qi, Wei Xu, Zhijiang Guo,
• Abstract summary: We introduce DebateQA, a dataset of 2,941 debatable questions. We develop two metrics: Perspective Diversity and Dispute Awareness. Using DebateQA with two metrics, we assess 12 popular large language models.
• Score: 13.199937786970027
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: The rise of large language models (LLMs) has enabled us to seek answers to inherently debatable questions on LLM chatbots, necessitating a reliable way to evaluate their ability. However, traditional QA benchmarks assume fixed answers are inadequate for this purpose. To address this, we introduce DebateQA, a dataset of 2,941 debatable questions, each accompanied by multiple human-annotated partial answers that capture a variety of perspectives. We develop two metrics: Perspective Diversity, which evaluates the comprehensiveness of perspectives, and Dispute Awareness, which assesses if the LLM acknowledges the question's debatable nature. Experiments demonstrate that both metrics align with human preferences and are stable across different underlying models. Using DebateQA with two metrics, we assess 12 popular LLMs and retrieval-augmented generation methods. Our findings reveal that while LLMs generally excel at recognizing debatable issues, their ability to provide comprehensive answers encompassing diverse perspectives varies considerably.

Related papers

• AGENT-CQ: Automatic Generation and Evaluation of Clarifying Questions for Conversational Search with LLMs [53.6200736559742]
  AGENT-CQ consists of two stages: a generation stage and an evaluation stage. CrowdLLM simulates human crowdsourcing judgments to assess generated questions and answers. Experiments on the ClariQ dataset demonstrate CrowdLLM's effectiveness in evaluating question and answer quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T17:06:27Z)
• Ranking Generated Answers: On the Agreement of Retrieval Models with Humans on Consumer Health Questions [25.158868133182025]
  We present a method for evaluating the output of generative large language models (LLMs) Our scoring method correlates with the preferences of human experts. We validate it by investigating the well-known fact that the quality of generated answers improves with the size of the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-19T09:27:45Z)
• Multi-LLM QA with Embodied Exploration [55.581423861790945]
  We investigate the use of Multi-Embodied LLM Explorers (MELE) for question-answering in an unknown environment. Multiple LLM-based agents independently explore and then answer queries about a household environment. We analyze different aggregation methods to generate a single, final answer for each query.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T12:46:40Z)
• LOVA3: Learning to Visual Question Answering, Asking and Assessment [61.51687164769517]
  Question answering, asking, and assessment are three innate human traits crucial for understanding the world and acquiring knowledge. Current Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) primarily focus on question answering, often neglecting the full potential of questioning and assessment skills. We introduce LOVA3, an innovative framework named "Learning tO Visual question Answering, Asking and Assessment"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T18:21:59Z)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• You don't need a personality test to know these models are unreliable: Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Models on Psychometric Instruments [37.03210795084276]
  We examine whether the current format of prompting Large Language Models elicits responses in a consistent and robust manner. Our experiments on 17 different LLMs reveal that even simple perturbations significantly downgrade a model's question-answering ability. Our results suggest that the currently widespread practice of prompting is insufficient to accurately and reliably capture model perceptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T09:50:53Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• LatEval: An Interactive LLMs Evaluation Benchmark with Incomplete Information from Lateral Thinking Puzzles [22.119796373133298]
  We propose a novel evaluation benchmark, LatEval, which assesses the model's lateral thinking within an interactive framework. In our benchmark, we challenge LLMs with 2 aspects: the quality of questions posed by the model and the model's capability to integrate information for problem-solving. For example, even the most advanced model, GPT-4, exhibits the advantage to some extent, yet still maintain a noticeable gap when compared to human.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-21T16:49:40Z)
• Can ChatGPT Assess Human Personalities? A General Evaluation Framework [70.90142717649785]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have produced impressive results in various areas, but their potential human-like psychology is still largely unexplored. This paper presents a generic evaluation framework for LLMs to assess human personalities based on Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-01T06:16:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.